Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Help Me Select a Wagon
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
1) VW Passat GLS 1.8 Tip (optioned to MSRP $29k)
2) Mazda 6 "sportwagon" (optioned to MSRP $28k)
I've driven both and have to say that I like the styling, solidity and quality of materials in the Passat. It is clearly more upscale. That said, I would have to dump the stock wheels and install an aftermarket Eibach sport suspension (plus bigger rear sway) to get it to handle like the M6 - and even then I'd still not have the 6's excellent steering feel. I'd also chip the Passat with a mild upgrade good for 212hp and 207lb-ft (the local dealer in Santa Cruz is chip-friendly), so all told we're only talking $3,500.
Interestingly, they both feel like they accelerate at the same pace, only the delivery is different: the M6 is dead down low and the 1.8T kicks in the power much lower on the rpm scale and much faster. The M6 sounds happier at 5600rpm. But both have a lag. Unfortunately the Passat TDI is not for sale in CA and won't be to my knowledge anytime soon.
So of my choicedss here, the biggest concern to me (and many out here) is fuel economy. The chip upgrade cuts only 1mpg off the 1.8's numbers and the reports I've seen consistently note about 22-23 city and 30-31 highway. It does run on premium.
I don't know what type of fuel the M6 runs on and I am concerned about EPA ratings that suggest 19/26 (the only data I have on the M6 fuel economy except that a majority of feedback here at Edmunds lists their opinion of fuel economy for the various M6 models at 7.0 or below), because in my experience EPA ratings are about 15-20% optimistic (meaning that we're really talking 16-17/22-23 for the M6). This seems pretty weak for a new car. My 4100lb 1993 MB 190 2.6 achieves a combined 23mpg!
So I'm left thinking that the M6 is cheaper, more fun to drive in stock setup and certainly a nice car, but the Passat kills it on the miles-per-gallon equation. Am I missing something important or would anyone care to comment?
I think most 6s owners have been averaging combined fuel economy of mid-20s. The wagon should be similar, if a tad lower due to its aerodynamics and about 100lbs more of mass. A lot depends on how hard and often you accelerate. However, the 6 engine only requires regular fuel.
I've friends who have been happy with their Passat wagons, despite the occasional non-regular service call (windows coming out of their tracks, occasional electrical gremlins like lights always burning out). I don't know anyone with a 6 wagon yet, but ones with 6 sedans have been pretty happy with them too (none of them [OK, just the local ones] have 6 sedans with the "staining" issue, which apparently has been resolved as I haven't heard of it in a long while).
"...but ones with 6 sedans have been pretty happy with them too (none of them [OK, just the local ones] have 6 sedans with the "staining" issue, which apparently has been resolved as I haven't heard of it in a long while)."
Eh? Spare us the effort of having to look this up... what is the "Staining issue?" Thanks!
Whether that's resolved or not depends on who you ask - some owners are not happy with Mazda's response and if you Google "Mazda6 rust" you'll find a few of them.
Of course the Passat has its issues, too, the ignition coil thingy was pretty bad.
Nobody's perfect.
-juice
My experience is my cars average (mix of driving in SoCal) about the city EPA number, though they usually get close to the highway number during freeway only driving.
Here is a very rough calculation based on the VW's EPA 21/30 vs. The Mazda's 19/26:
If you drive 16K miles per year and average 20 mpg with the VW you will use 800 gallons per year. At $2.50 per gallon for premium (I saw $2.92 in LA today) you would spend $2000 per year on fuel for the VW.
The Mazda will probably average about 12.5% less mpg, meaning 17.5 mpg, or about 914 gallons used each year. At $2.30 per gallon for regular you would spend a little over $2100 per year. Using only sticker price difference ($1000) it will take 9 years or so to break even buying the VW based on just fuel cost. If the Mazda requires premium the years to break even would be close to four years. If you make the $3500 mods to the VW, you will most likely not keep the car long enough to come close to breaking even based on fuel costs alone.
You may find the difference in costs to insure to be higher than the difference in yearly fuel cost.
In short, buy what you like most and enjoy it. The $100 or so difference in fuel cost each year (at today's prices) shouldn't be enough to be a major factor in the purchase decision.
I'd like to get a TDI in CA too. Had two VW Rabbit oil burners years ago (one was a turbo) and liked the 45 mpg average (and the 1000 mile range with the 15 gal aux. tank added).
The current Passat body style has been around for quite a while. Isn't VW about to introduce a more up to date model or maybe it is the Jetta that is getting updated?
OTOH, that was a heck of a platform to begin with.
But yeah, pics of the 2005 replacement are already out there, check the Future Models threads.
Any how, as far as the cost goes, these are in the same ball park to pick the one you like best. Being happy is far more important than saving $100 per year on gas.
-juice
I have a choice between the GL w/ESP (with a long drive or long wait to get it) or the GLS w/ESP and possibly leather (more easily available, but for $2k - $3k more).
Are there any problems I should be aware of with the GLS or leather-upholstered cars? Such as: reliability problems w/sunroofs, or positive/negative impact on resale value in going to GLS?
-juice
- $24,767 loaded V6 vs. 30K+ for the VW
- SAME mpg as V6 Passat but can fill up with REGULAR unleaded! Cha ching.
- In dash 6 CD player vs. changer in rear cargo area.
- Seats fold FLAT in rear on the M6.
- Fresher styling on the M6 vs. the same Passat platform for the last 5+ years.
I could go on and on but I think you get the jist. The only negative I can find is that the 6 does not offer an AWD, but that's what chains are for when it snows. I had an extensive test drive (20-25 minutes) and the M6 drove fantastically. It's not as peppy off the line as the 1.8T Passat but it really shines on the freeway. I'll update this forum with how the new Mazda works out after a week or so of driving. Wish me luck!
Keep us posted with comparisons/contrasts.
-juice
For years, I commuted all of 6 miles between home and work with my Dodge Ram diesel. Engine never complained. These days, my commute is almost 40 miles each way (I moved, job didn't), and to be honest, my fuel economy is about the same. The engine is moving nearly 7000 pounds of truck, so it has work to do, which is probably the reason it has given me over 110,000 on the odo after 8 years.
isda, before you completely bail on the idea of a diesel, give one a good test drive and see if you give it a decent workout in your usual driving style.
kcram
Host
Smart Shopper and Wagons Message Boards
All gasoline engine cars need a warm up period too. The engines use a richer mixture until the engine reaches normal operating temperatures.
The Prius retains engine heat and if used daily doesn't need a warm up period like most cars.
Diesels have a couple of major advantages in stop and go driving. First, they use a lot less fuel at idle. Second, diesels usually develop more torque and at lower engine speeds than similar size gasoline engines - meaning you use less gas(accelerator) pedal in stop and go driving with a diesel, which means better mpg.
I've had two VW diesel cars and the faster I went the smaller the mpg advantage over the same car with a gasoline engine.
About 40% of cars sold in Europe are diesel powered because in the long run they cost less to operate.
Diesel cars cost more to buy, but get better mpg and usually diesel fuel costs less than gasoline.
If you don't put many miles on a car the miles per gallon a vehicle gets should not be a major factor in your purchase decision. I see you posted in the help me select a wagon topic, so that leaves out the Prius as an alternate choice. Personally, I like them very much, but they are not much fun to drive.
If you still want a VW diesel be sure to check with the dealer and find out of the VW takes a special engine oil available only from the dealer. If so, this can be a hidden additional expense that takes away from fuel used savings.
PT GT comment for post 526: The PT GT with an automatic transmission feels very quick at low speeds. Turbo lag is nil and because the of the torque converter the engine seems like it is always in the power band, even from just above idle. Even with the performance of the GT I'd trade it for a PT TDI if DC makes them available in the US. Found that adding the formerly standard rear sway bar helped stability, cornering, and improved the ride over irregular rough spots in the road.
I still have one question though that I need to have a clear answer.
What happens then if the distance and my driving style is not adequate to give the diesel the required workout both in the short and long term?
Compare these for a long time, which one is better in longterm?
Personally I prefer a stick, so Maybe just M6 and legacy left here.
I just curious why the OHV on Maxx have better MPG? is that a funny stuff?
And why these wagon offering 1500-2500 cash rebate in states now but zero in Canada?
Also, i might consider the 05 jetta TDI Wagon once it offer a stronger engin, maybe the one use on Passat currently. But can't find any detail information about it.
My cousin has four diesel vehicles. One is a motor home, so let's leave that one out. His Dodge truck is used locally, usually for short drives, with light or no loads. No problems. His older Passat TDI (new one on order) was used in a mix of driving and was usually driven solo. No problems and the mpg was close to the EPA numbers. The other one is an S-Class Mercedes diesel and is used mostly for long haul. No problems either. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my two VW diesels were trouble free. I used them mostly for very short distance driving (1 to 5 miles most of the time) plus commuted to work 50 miles each way 6 or 7 times per month. I averaged about 45 mpg with my VW diesels. The one with the turbo gave about the same mpg as the one without. Even though most of my driving is now short haul I would buy another diesel if they were sold here (SoCal).
vincentwang: GM V6 push rod engines tend to do quite well in mpg. I suspect the reason is that push rod engines tend to develop more torque at lower rpm than overhead cam engines. GM tends to tune for low end torque rather than high end horsepower too.
The Mazda wagon has a sporty feel. The Subaru, with the turbo engine, will be much quicker than the Mazda. The Jetta TDI will feel like a slug compared to either one, but get far better mpg. The new Jetta is supposed to be a little bigger than the current model - a needed improvement for back seat riders. Hard to beat fit and finish of the VW, but the Subaru has been improved a lot too. Hard choice between the three because they are so different in character. For me, with very high gasoline prices around here (over $2.50 per gallon) I'd look first at the VW TDI (when it becomes available). Next choice would be the new Subaru with the 250hp turbo motor (I've been spoiled by the performance of my PT GT). I'd be more likely to get a Mazda 3 five door over the 6 wagon or five door.
I do feel the same way as you, but I want to confirm the 05 Jetta before make decision.
And, i don't really need a Turbo Legacy, I just use it for city driving and some holiday trips.I test drive the 2.5i, and it's already very powerful for my needs.
The Maxx has the biggest rear seat and the DVD option is exclusive, plus you can feel patriotic if that matters (though I think all 3 are made in the USA).
The Subie is the all-weather champ, and also the performance leader if you opt for the turbo. IMO it has the most upscale interior.
Take your pick, each has its advantages.
-juice
I'm leaning toward the Jetta, primarily for these reasons:
1) more fun to drive
2) available as a wagon
3) diesel technology has a proven track record, hybrid does not.
4) locally available with manual transmission (which seems to be even harder to find in the Hybrid)
5) better safety features (head curtain air bags, available EPS)
6) nicer interior (except for cramped rear leg room)
Big plusses for the Hybrid include:
1) cleaner emissions
2) better reliability, at least until the batteries wear out
3) sales tax-free in Maryland through June 30
4) no trouble finding fuel
Total price-to-purchase is very close for the 2 cars; real world fuel mileage is similar; both get good safety ratings for their class. So I tend to weight subjective factors ("fun to drive") fairly heavily.
Anyone care to add or take issue with anything?
Diesel fuel carries a pretty big price advantage right now, too.
-juice
I agree with post 540. If you need a wagon, get a wagon. If not, but want added cargo capacity consider a hatchback.
I've had two diesels and never had a problem finding fuel.
Personally, I like the Prius a lot better than the Civic hybrid, but it can get expensive if one adds all of the goodies.
-juice
Legacy - I really liked the styling, standard curtain air bags, and gas mileage. I'm in the market for a 5-speed manual, but test drove the 2.5i auto. This combination wasn't very impressive even with the shift-it-yourself mode. The ride was very smooth in town and on the freeway. Wind noise at the driver A-piller was very prominent at freeway speeds. Hard to find a Limited 2.5i wagon with 5-speed manual.
Mazda 6 - My wife really likes the styling and so do I. The back seat is roomy - we were able to put the car seat behind the passenger seat, not in the middle. The remote releases to fold the rear seats are really nice. On the road, the car was very smooth ride-wise and engine-wise. No wind noise on the freeway. The steering didn't feel as tight or direct as the Legacy. The gas pedal seemed too firm to me, and throttle response a little flat. Acceleration was good, but not that impressive - maybe better with the manual although both are 5-speed. Road noise was evident on rough surfaces, but the suspension soaks up bumps well.
9-5 - Most cargo space. Good balance between sporty and comfortable. Great on gas, but does take premium. Car feels light on its feet for a midsize.
Anyway, I like all three. Maybe I'll just go for the best deal.
Bob
I never even test-drove the Civic Hybrid. Hard to find one with manual transmission. Didn't even bother looking for a Prius (long wait reported), and of course, neither comes in a wagon.
Did you try a 6i or 6s? Auto or manual?
The V6 is nice, a little flat down low but peppy at high revs.
The GT is significatly quicker, with better low-end torque, IMO. Try them back to back.
I drove a CPO 9-5 wagon and liked it, but it had a lot more turbo lag than the Subie did, by far.
Tom: congrats. I know you searched long and hard so good luck with the TDI.
-juice
But Mazda's V6 needs revs to produce power, too. The numbers don't lie - 192 lb-ft at a sky-high 5000 rpm.
The Subie produces 250 lb-ft at just 3600 rpm.
Heck, the base 2.5i boxer engines produces 168 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, so it's almost a match for Mazda's V6.
The turbo makes a lot more torque a lot sooner for the Subie, basically.
If your 6s has a manual tranny, you may be comparing apples to oranges and find that a manual (with either car) is much quicker, especially slipping the clutch.
-juice ('98 Forester, '93 Miata)
While I would prefer not to have AWD (for reasons of weight and efficiency), I did test the 4-cyl non turbo Legacy wagon, and was very impressed with how it handled/felt (much better than the last generation). I would put it above the likes of Accord, Camry and even Mazda 6 (though I tested an automatic Mazda, so that may have biased me against it). As far as acceleration goes it was plenty peppy, and certainly would have enough power for freeway passing etc, but not as quick as Honda or Toyota - all with manuals. Of course it dusted the automatic mazda6 (4-cyl), but that is not a fair comparison.
I've gotta try the new TDI, though. Does it at least come in a wagon?
-juice
Yes it comes in a wagon.
I would be very interested in your thoughts if you drive one. Nearest VW dealer is nearly 200 miles from me, and they didn't have a diesel last time I was out that way.
Diesels are not good for high rpm's but with that much torque you don't need the high rpms.
There are plenty of VW dealers around here.
From what I heard the old TDI was a little strained in the Passat wagon, pulling extra weight, but it was fine in the lighter/smaller models. So yeah, I'd like to see if it can haul a Passat wagon around, which weighs a good deal more than a Golf.
-juice
From what I hear the Passat is quite peppy with 44 more hp and 98 more ft-lbs of torque than the last generation TDI. I convinced my father to test drive one for me and report back. He said it felt as lively as his 1.8t with a stick shift in normal driving - yes some retired people drive sticks. Dying to try one out for myself though.
The vehicle that I find to be truely stunning though is the new MB 320 cdi with 350 ft lbs of torque. It is faster than the gasoline version and gets EPA 27/37. Very impressive, but not cheap.
And in Europe, can you believe it's $1000 cheaper than the E320 gas version?
I'm not sure that's true in the US, though.
We're supposed to get low sulfur diesel by 2007, right? If so we'll see more and more diesel options.
-juice
Well, sort of. You still have to reduce compression on a turbo engine, so when your off boost you have less power. So, at low RPMS it feels like a smaller engine.
"But Mazda's V6 needs revs to produce power, too. The numbers don't lie - 192 lb-ft at a sky-high 5000 rpm."
Yes, but the power delivery on the 3.0L Mazda engine is more linear. That's my gripe with all turbo engines - the non-linear behaviour (sort of a slingshot-like feel) of the power build-up.
"The Subie produces 250 lb-ft at just 3600 rpm."
Yes, it looks good on paper. but driving is what matters.
"Heck, the base 2.5i boxer engines produces 168 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, so it's almost a match for Mazda's V6."
Yes, the 2.5L Subie is nice for a 4cyl. However, the performance is about the same as with the 2.3L in the Mazda6 due to the extra weight of the Legacy and energy required by the AWD drivetrain.
"The turbo makes a lot more torque a lot sooner for the Subie, basically."
Yeah, I keep reading this about this turbo engine and others, and it sure looks good on paper. But like I said, the driving is what matters.
In the manual you don't feel any lag at all, just pick the right gear.
I've driven a model that was broken in, and I felt the adaptive tranny worked wonders to minimize lag. You should try one at the Subaru event that it touring around the country, because you could then get your hands on one that had a few miles on it.
I drove the Mazda6 with an automatic, and at low revs is has the same problem, only more so. It's flat below 4000rpm. If peak torque is just 192 lb-ft at 5000 rpm, it's making less than that everywhere on the tach below 5000 rpm.
Anyone have the torque curve handy for the Mazda 6s? I'd be willing to bet the 2.5T blankets it every where on the rev range.
Perhaps when the turbo kicks in you feel such a surge that it seems relatively slow off boost. But there is still more torque than the Mazda offers, at any rpm.
I'll go try to find some torque curves for the Legacy.
-juice
Look instead at the value pricing. The sharp styling. The fact that it runs on regular fuel. The wide array of body styles, and the availability of manual trannies of almost all of them. The neat seats that fold at the press of a button.
It's certainly quick enough, but it won't win any races vs. a Legacy turbo.
-juice
It was geared very short, maybe that helped it get up to speed. It was sorta quick, but I think the 6s feels quicker overall.
-juice
The boost effect is less noticeable in the 210hp version of that engine, the one in the Forester XT. It's more of a light-pressure setup.
With the manual trannys, you barely notice, with either engine. But the turbos do match up better with those manuals.
Subaru does have an H6 in the Outback, but it's slower and costs more than the turbo. I guess those looking for the linear power delivery can opt for that. It's not offered in the Legacy in the US, though it might come later on.
6 speed auto? Is that made by JATCO? I know they make the tranny in the MPV (my guess is the 6s also).
HUGE improvement over the lame and unreliable Ford CD4E that went in to the 626 4 cylinder automatics.
-juice